We search the world, asking questions. Sometimes we get answers that change the way we look at our lives and the cosmos.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

The Three Horses Problem

Consider three horses, each pulling a cart filled with hay. The horses are in a row, walking down the road. As it walks, the second horse gets to eat from the hay that the first horse is pulling. The third horse gets to eat from the hay the second horse is pulling. Which horse would you prefer to be?

Although from a pure logical standpoint, horse 2 is the choice because it is the only horse that eats while its load is lighten, I would prefer horse 1 from an emotional standpoint. Horse 1 gets an unobstructed view of the terrain while not having to step in, or smell, fecal matter. Horse 3 receives the most contact with fecal matter.

All that needs to be said still is. All that really is in context, though, is the food issue. 3rd would have an increasing weight in itself, and 2nd would have a constant weight (taking in hay, having hay eaten), not a decreasing load.

I think the first horse is in the leader role, while having it's burdon relieved by the second horse by eating it. The second and third horses represent followers, not in control of the direction they are going. The second horse is getting rewarded (eating from first horses wagon) while it's burdon is lightened by the actions of the third horse. The third horse relieves the second horse from it's burdon, but doesn't have any relief from it's own burdon.Basically, the three horses represent current society. First horse- upper class;leaders. Second horse- middle class. Third horse- lower class;servants.

Horse 1 not only does this horse have it's load lightened, has a wonderful view, but it also gets to choose what fresh grass and plants to eat as it walks. The horses behind can only guess why they have momentarily stopped while they ponder their hoofs covered and smelling of fecal matter and the dry hay they that has rat droppings in it from being stored in the barn prior to delivery.

Second horse, no question. Your load is getting lightened by the third horse, plus you get to chow down whenever you feel like it. Some people have argued that your weight would therefore remain constant, but remember that horses are quite happy to poop in the middle of the road.

Since heavy horses are bred to work, I would take the third horse. Working isn't the issue, but at the end of the day, the first horse hasn't any food, the second horse is full but no more food, but I ate and have food for tomorrow.

Someone said that the first horse would be 'upper class', wouldn't the last one be upper? He takes from someone else and noone takes from him, the second horse gets taken from but in turn takes from the first horse, who is the lower class.

Anyway I pick number three, in the name of hypertrophy, he gains muscle by carrying the most and continual nutrition!

Assuming that our "master" is humane (or intelligent) enough to periodically feed us, I would rather be the first horse because I would have a good view (instead of looking at a horses arse). On the other hand, if I were the second horse and the first horse was a sexy female horse, then I certainly wouldn't complain too much.

All this concern about fecal matter is silly. There is, after all, a wagon in between each horse's butt and the next in line. While I am happily munching away, since I don't have to be focused on where I am going or leading, I have plenty of time to look down and avoid stepping in any "fecal matter".Horse #2, far and away.The food that #1 misses, and the lighter load that #3 misses.Win win all the way, just for the inconvenience of dodging waste.

walt's answer is great. I doubly concur. it seems that horse #1 is the best choice when you don't automatically assume various unstated constructs about the horse's mission, motives, and responsibility in the delivery of the hay.

3rd horse. food, exercise, more food when you get home.sure, horse 1 gets a view, but he gets a lot less to eat than the other two.nr.2 would maybe be okay, but if horse two and three eat at the same speed, he neither gains nor loses food.But horse nr. three, he gets to eat a lot of food, and nobody takes from him. Also gets very much exercise.

While the first horse may have the appreciation for food earned after a hard days work, the second horse has it made.Second Horses cart is constantly being lightened, while he is eating. Also since the first horse is Not eating, he's not pooping. So the second horse also does not have to "watch his step".

The first horse would have total control over where it would be going such as a water source or a farmer with apples! The 2nd and 3rd horses are limited to the hay. Also, the 1st horse has his load lightened!

The first horse has to make all the mundane decisions as to where to go and what path is the safest and all B.S. His load is getting lightened, but then again, if he begins to lag behind, then the second horse is going to be getting in his way.

The second horse has no advantage and can only slow down or speed up in accordance with how much room is given to him by horse one and three. His load is getting lightened by horse 3, but he is also getting heavier because of all the hay he is eating, and plus, how often are we eating sphagetti as we are walking on a path?

The third horse has it set. He doesnt need to preoccupy himself with what path to take and things like that. He can just lazily follow the others and really enjoy the view as it all goes by. Also, he can lag behind as much as he wants. In a way, he can set his own pace, as long as it isn't faster than the first horse. Not to mention that he will have a full load of hay ready for him when they arrive at their destination.

The third horse does have to deal with the feces of the other two horses, but then again, the first horse is going to have to deal with all the obstacles in the way and the second horse is dealing with the claustrophibic condition of being sandwhiched inbetween the two.

obviously, each horse has its own strengths and weaknesses. 1 has a steadily lighter load while taking in the scenery, sitting on a leadership role, and not getting poop on his feet.2 has constant food and a lighter load to carry.3 has constant food, but will step in all of the poop.

However, one thing we are overlooking here is this: Is the first horse being led on by a carrot? Is someone directing the first horse? Because in that situation, the whole "Leader role/ ego" thing disappears. Also, putting the carrot aside, that lead horse would be the most severely punished upon arrival to their assumed destination, as he was supposed to make sure the load arrived intact.

To those of you who picked #1, if the trek is a month, horse one would die of starvation. If #1 dies before its load is eaten and #2 & 3 continue, then #2 is without food. So it depends, we need more info. Is it five minutes, a day, or...? Have I gone too far?

Horse one is leading but they are all on a road. According to the question there is no option to deviate from the path. If we are able to disregard that part of the question then we could also say that the horses could switch places or remove the wagons completely. The real answer to this question will differ from person to person as it has a lot to do with what each person holds as important. Take for instance the guy that wanted to pull the weight and eat so her could grow in strength. That never even occurred to me, but it's right, and I like to think my answer would be right as well.